User:Gryffindor0303/Victoria Lomasko/DaniellePorto Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Gryffindor0303
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Draft:Victoria Lomasko

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
This draft does not yet have a lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All of the content in this draft is relevant to the topic, and it is all fairly recent.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content does not seem to lean towards any opinion. It mostly seems like neutral facts about Lomasko, and it isn't making

any kind of argument.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
It looks like a lot of the sources are articles written by Lomasko herself, so that could cause an issue for objectivity. It might be good

to gather information from other authors. The links seem to work, and most sources have current information. There are a lot of sources that seem to cover many different aspects of Lomasko's life and work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Content in the Career 2010-present section could be organized a bit better with sub-headers. The Present Day subsection is quite short and is probably something that could be put into a lead. Other than that, the content is all clear and easy to read.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images in this draft.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
This draft does not link to any other article, so perhaps links to things like the 2012 protests could be helpful. This draft does follow the pattern of most wiki articles; it just needs a lead. There are many sources listed that cover a lot of information, but it would be good to have a few more that weren't written by Lomasko herself.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think this article looks really good so far; it has lots of information on Lomasko's career and her many different works. I think it could be improved by adding a good lead to the article that briefly summarizes what has been added, as well as some more distinction between the different topics in the Career 2010-present subheading.